On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:> > > > On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:> > > > > > Adding another check after the second get_cycles() makes it reliable:> > > > My original patch actually had that, and Ingo added it to the -tip tree > > too (I think), so that should be the one we're discussing anyway. I just > > didn't think it would ever trigger in practice, which is why I removed it. > > Mea culpa.> > My bad. Did not test that against -tip, just applied it from mail :)> > Just checked. The -tip version still has the expect-- in the for()> which might lead to stupid results depending on the gcc madness level.

If Alok has the second check in place and is actually worried aboutthat 288us impact, then we can add the following (untested), whichdoes not impact the speed of the check.